Summations Only

As Tanypteryx has pointed out, he and i are not at odds. He's not making the claim that all strata were deposited by the Flood and therefore the existence of aeolian depositional features is not problematic for him. But despite your misunderstanding of Tanypteryx's position, the fact that you said he now has to explain to me the issue of the angle of repose means you accept the need to explain this issue if one thinks the strata were aqueously-deposited. But again, you know you can't do this and so you will pretend physical impossibilities are a minor issue.

This is too funny. Are you a hypocrite or do you just lack self-awareness? You've spent quite a while now trying to avoid at all costs responding to a variety of points made here. Thanks for the caps, now you've swayed me. First, others here are posting the issues with your point almost as fast as you're handwaving them away. Second, you can keep calling my points irrelevant, but that doesn't make them so. I have pointed out more than one glaring logical inconsistency as well as at least one physical impossibility. Just to be clear, do you really think that defying the laws of physics is irrelevant or are you denying that your theory defies the laws of physics? In either case you're wrong, but I just wanted to be clear. Here you seem to be indicating that you think physical impossibilities represent a pretty major issue for a theory. So why is it only a minor issue in the context of your theory? Plus the above assertion is so demonstrably wrong that I'm going to give you the chance to explain what you were really trying to say. I think you are trying to convince me that alternating layers of aqueous and aeolian deposits are a problem for the Old Earth model by assuring me that it is impossible for the for a depositional surface to be underwater at one time and above water at another. Because we can observe sea level changes today and see the sort of sedimentary sequence they produce, we know that Earth has undergone a series of marine transgressions and regressions. This is another one of those inconvenient facts that proves the Flood didn't happen. Like the 34 degree angle of repose, it is an issue you can only deal with by proving that the laws of physics that govern the creation of these sedimentary structures were different in the past than they have always been observed to be. Like I said before, how many physical impossibilities does it take for you to consider it a problem with your story? But as I said, I'm assuming that you must have misspoken so I await your clarification.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : added shtuffEdited by Atheos canadensis, : spelling

Technically correct, but only because (as has been pointed out) none of it is in the Bible at all. You could also claim that during the Flood the sky smelled of strawberry cheesecake. Doesn't contradict the Bible, but like the rest of your extra-Biblical claims, you don't even have the flimsy support of the Bible behind you.And while what you've said doesn't contradict the Bible, it does contradict the laws of physcics, something we both agree is a big problem for any theory. So why do you continue to so cravenly avoid discussing the physical impossibilities your theory requires?

Wow, what a surprise; Faith discounts yet another "minor" detail that shows it is not physically possible for the Flood to have been responsible for what she thinks it has. It is really astounding to me that you have managed to convince yourself that a good theory is characterized by focusing only on the big picture and ignoring all the details that prove the theory wrong. I know you've been told this before, but if your theory fails over and over to account for actual observations, your theory is obviously wrong. If your theory requires again and again that you invoke a physically impossibility, your theory is obviously wrong.The only way you can account for the number of physical impossibilities required by your fantasy is if you prove that the laws of physics could have been (let alone were) different in the past than they are now. in other words, you have to disprove uniformitarianism, which is approximately where this started in the last thread. To disprove uniformitarianism, you have exactly no observations on which to base that disproof whereas we have every single observation ever in support of uniformitarianism.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : uniformitarianism.

I understand that you're outnumbered here, but you make it sound like you're actually answering a fair number of the often major problems people have pointed out to you, which you definitely aren't. Go on, try one more. Explain to me how wet sand was deposited at a 34 degree angle. Or where the footprint-makers came from. Or how the in situ dinosaur was preserved. Or the existence of speleothems which RAZD has pointed out take a long time to form. There are plenty to choose from and you're alternating between ignoring them completely and pretending they aren't a problem. Despite the fact that you acknowledge that a physical impossibility does indeed represent a major problem for a theory. I'm certain you'll continue to display that intellectual integrity we've all come to love and either ignore or downplay these issues once again, but I just thought I'd point it out.

This might be considered a valid excuse if the points I were presenting were complex, though even then I think it displays a lack of intellectual integrity to say "I don't understand your objections so I refuse to think about them". But the points I am presenting are not complex or difficult to understand in any way. While you clearly don't understand a lot of geology, you are also clearly not stupid, so there is really no excuse for ignoring my points. Let me spell it out again. It is very simple. Here we go:1. Wet sand is deposited with a 45 degree angle of repose
2. Dry sand is deposited with a 34 degree angle of repose
3. These angles are determined by the laws of physics
4. Therefor unless you can prove the laws of physics were different in the past, the existence of bedding angles of 34 degrees proves that the Flood cannot be responsible for the entire rock record as you claim.What part of this do you not understand? Tell me and I will do my best to explain it to you. If you refuse it will be proof that lack of understanding is merely an excuse. And I have already quoted a post where you make it clear that physical impossibilities are a major problem for a theory, so calling them irrelevant in the context of your theory is blatantly hypocritical. And badgering you serves the purpose of giving you the uncomfortable reminder that your fantasy relies on physical impossibilities which we both agree are a major problem. I expect you'll ignore this post until I remind you again of the glaring problems with your theory, so expect to hear back from me until you honestly address the issues I present.

You obviously haven't bothered to read or think about anything I've written, or you can't understand it due to theory-blindness which I think is a lot of the problem here, because there is PLENTY of evidence there from observed facts that the Flood doesn't work.I notice that you've done a lot of posting since my last post and have somehow not managed to respond. You claimed that the reason you were not addressing my argument was because you didn't understand it. I explained it very clearly and offered to clarify any uncertainty you had. As I predicted, when your bluff was called you reverted to ignoring the point entirely. Well here is the promised reminder of your intellectual cowardice. Given your propensity for ignoring the points you can't deal with, I'm certain it won't be the last reminder.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : formatting

Ha! Once again I'm forced to ask if you are a hypocrite or just lack self-awareness. How long now have I been trying to get you to address what I have said? Seems like, according to yourself, you have no business commenting at all.

Not sure why you're addressing this post to me when you're clearly trying to convince yourself. You're complaining about people saying "Your theory is wrong" without, according to you, taking the time to understand it. But somehow when you say "Your theory is wrong but I can't be bothered to understand it" it is perfectly reasonable. Quit making excuses, Faith. You don't have a response because such a response would entail disproving the laws of physics. I know you've declared it irrelevant, but that serves only to give yourself the excuse to ignore it. Though I usually leave the discussion of cognitive dissonance to RAZD, your response to my points is what he's talking about. You believe the Flood laid down all strata. You believe you are a reasonable person who rationally considers the evidence. I have presented evidence that proves your belief in the Flood wrong and for which you have no explanation in the context of that belief. To preserve the above two beliefs in the face of the evidence I present, you have come to the conclusion that the evidence I present is wrong/boring/irrelevant. That way you still get to believe in the Flood despite the evidence I and others present and also believe that you rationally consider the available evidence despite refusing to rationally consider the available evidence. This may suffice to resolve your dissonance but nothing else. That's the last I'll say about dissonance, but the example was too glaring to refrain from remarking upon. Well at least you're honest enough to state explicitly that you are unwilling to expose yourself to the knowledge that will invalidate your theory. We already knew that, but it's nice that you know it too. Of course you won't see it this way, but the problem you complain about should be a red flag for you about your beliefs. We can easily point to piles of studies from the scientific literature that support what we're saying. That is because very clever people working over hundreds of years have consistently found the evidence to support the Old Earth theory, including those working before OE theory was mainstream. You complain that you have to do a lot of work to find alternative explanations and this is because there is really no Creationist research to support you. This is because there is no evidence to support the conclusions a YEC "scientist" desires.In the context of the evidence of aeolian deposition, you're clearly telling yourself that if you could be bothered to investigate you would find that you were right all along. But of course many geologists have gone to great lengths to determine whether or not a stratum or formation is aeolian or aqueous in origin. Without any interest in disproving the Flood (to forestall any accusations of conspiracy) many formations have been shown to be aeolian in origin. Because these people are doing real science and are interested in getting to the truth, debates have been waged and all the evidence and alternative explanations you can't be bothered to investigate have been considered. I know you won't accept the fact that people who are infinitely more qualified than you to be discussing depositional environments have actually looked at both sides of any given aeolian vs aqueous question and in many cases found that the evidence supports the aeolian conclusion, but your personal incredulity has no value in an evidence-based debate.I'm not going to get into the old "who feels sorry for who" nonsense, because it's obvious that you're very satisfied with your carefully cultivated and rationalized ignorance. But if you're feeling sorry for the people whose points you have ignored because you can't deal with them, then you should be spreading your pity around this thread pretty liberally. The bedding angle of the strata is only one of several points I have made and one of many more that others here have made that show the Flood never happened. You've actually convinced yourself that being ignorant is a reasonable excuse for ignoring the evidence, which is interesting. It doesn't take an great learning to see that it doesn't make sense for a dinosaur to be preserved sitting on its nest to have been preserved thusly by a catastrophic flood. While your willful ignorance may seem like a convenient and comforting excuse to you, it only reinforces the disdain the rest of us feel for proponents of young earth fantasies.

Nonsense. She totally has an answer. And a really, really good one too. Or she would if she could be bothered to think about it just now when she's so busy and tired and did I mention busy? I'm sure when she eventually gets around to addressing your question at some nebulous, potentially non-existent time in the future she will have a really well thought out and comprehensive answer. *Urp* Sorry, just a bit of excess snark coming up I'm afraid. While I agree that it is a good idea to have a personal understanding of the things one says and I'm curious to see how Percy answers, I think it should be pointed out that Percy, if he is merely regurgitating, is repeating information from people like you, i.e. qualified people with geological training. Faith is repeating information from unqualified creationist sources or more usually citing her own imagination. If pressed, Percy can easily find well-evidenced explanations for the interpretations of depositional environments he talks about whereas Faith both can't and won't. Thus, while I agree that one should be cognizant of and honest about one's limitations, Percy and Faith's situations are not exactly equivalent. Which you might not have been suggesting anyway.

Except that we aren't all guessing. That's just you. We're making inferences based on observation of how current weathering and erosion takes place and the signs left by various depositional regimes. You have started with the assumption that the Flood did it all and are imagining scenarios based on that without any grounding in any observation of weathering processes.

Funny how you keep reaching that point whenever yet another fact your Flood fantasy can't explain is presented. Most recently you're trying your best to avoid understanding that gradual uplift is not going to cause a river to flow off the sides. You've also tried to ignore the fact that according to all observations, catastrophic cataracts of water do not produce meandering channels. Add to this the speleothems, the aeolian bedding angles, the in situ dinosaur and all the myriad other objections you've either handwaved away or ignored entirely and your position becomes even more laughably shaky. You're trying to wrap it all up with a desperate attempt at establishing a false equivalency between your imaginings and our evidence-based inferences. Good to see you recognize that you have no hope of refuting the arguments of trained geologists with your completely untrained fabrications. The fact that we can keep producing "OE interpretations" is a good indication that we are right and you are wrong. We can keep pointing to modern processes that produce the same results as we observe in the GC and are thus most likely analogous to the processes that formed the GC. The mainstream theory of geology accounts again and again for what we observe. Every objection you have raised can be accounted for by non-Deluvian processes. In contrast, you have been forced over and over and OVER to ignore the points raised here for which your Flood model cannot account. I've said it before but I'll say it again: if your model fails again and again to account for the evidence, then your model is obviously wrong. You tell yourself over and over that you needn't look at any given piece of evidence because it is insignificant and if you really looked into it you would find yourself vindicated. This is a comforting fantasy, but nothing more. You really seem to believe that your utterly unsubstantiated beliefs about what must have happened are on equal footing with the observation-based inferences of what happened provided in this thread. This is quite absurd but I will reserve my pity because, as I said before, I know you are very happy with your ignorance.And just a reminder: you have as yet failed to disprove uniformitarianism. This is the only way you could refute the points raised in this thread. But obviously this isn't going to happen now that you've once again given yourself permission to run away and bury your head in the sand.Edited by Atheos canadensis, : more shtuff

Wow, you're really pleased with yourself about the Hallucigenia thing, aren't you? So pleased in fact you're gradually using it to replace the meager arguments you've offered up to now. Anyway, in the above quote you seem to be trying to claim that great cataracts cut the canyon and the meanders were produced by rivers later on. You seem not to have understood the picture RAZD posted showing that the ENTIRE CANYON is meandering, not just the river channel at the bottom. So how did your fantasy Flood cut that meandering canyon? Don't tell me; this is another one of those minor details you keep giving yourself permission to ignore.

I know others have already said this, but I'm going to say it again in the hopes that, if you read it enough times, you will actually understand what is being said instead of reiterating your misguided notions of uplift and hydrodynamics. Let's do it in point form so you don't get confused. Then you can pint out the parts you don't understand.1. The river originally flowed in a meandering path across a flat plain
2. Uplift began to occur
3. Uplift was slow (a few millimeters/year as RAZD has explained)
4. As the ground rose minutely, the river cut into it
5. As the channel became deeper, changes in course became increasingly unlikely and eventually more or less impossibleYou seem to be clinging to the notion that uplift occurred rapidly and so the river would have flowed off the sides or back down the slope. But this is a fantasy that is in opposition to actual observations of rates of uplift. You've also still refused to address the point that the entire canyon follows a meandering path, a fact which is consistent with our explanation by utterly inconsistent with yours. I'm surprised others aren't putting more pressure on you about this considering it pretty handily refutes what you imagine must have happened.

I would ask "how are you not getting this still?" with all the incredulity and disdain that would be warranted after it has been explained so many times, but the answer is clearly that you are refusing to understand. Why else would you keep indicating over and over that the river would at any point have been flowing uphill? I'll say it again:The river was never running uphill; the uplift was gradual.Get it?